Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
- Be Bold!
- Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
- Meet other new users
- Learn from others
- Play nice with others
- Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
- Tell us about you
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.
Emotions about emotion
I actually think the Emotion page is fine as is. It presents a psychological and philosophical perspective and I think the link you put to your affective neuroscience article is the way to go regarding neural mecanisms. One comment about the affective neuroscience article, it looks like its coming along nicely, but you really need a section in there regarding affective disorders, since many of what is known in this field stems from their study. Nice job though! Nrets 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sallison: my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. My activities of this semester have proven to be rather time consuming. I appreciate your comments on the FA success of cerebellum. I promise once things calm a bit I will get around to offering comments on the emotion article. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Pick's Disease, etc.
Hi Sallison and welcome to Wikipedia. The See Also section is a good idea to have, but I remember reading in guidelines (unfortunately I can't remember the exact place...but I'm sure I read it in the guidelines) that categorization should be used instead of "See Also," especially when it's just a short list like that. I noticed that all of the articles listed in "See Also" were in the "Cognitive disorders" category, so I just added Pick's Disease to that category. But if you're going to put all those other references in a context in the article, then that See Also can be there, but is the Cognitive disorders category appropriate for Pick's Disease? --CDN99 20:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your note! I have made some alterations in the text, and will make a comment on the talk page. / Habj 18:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey Sallison: I'm trying to revive the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and thought you might care to join us over there if you've got the time! Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
...for pointing out my error. I wasn't aware that frontal degeneration was uncommon in AD. I'm still pretty new at this whole clinical thing. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The image came from my lab. It's definitely FT degen. I just screwed up my naming of the images, and didn't notice during the upload. I've got a bank of images on my comp to upload still for articles I'm working on. Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the affirmative feedback concerning my cleanup on the amygdala page. I'm probably not the only one who loses confidence in some of these bio-psychology related topics after reading a few lines. I'll enter some comments on emotion, but I'm not nearly ready to attempt changes there. MoniqueRN 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Photic sneeze reflex
I responded to you on my talk page. SDC 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the edit that I had reversed.  Then I noticed this note in the aricle: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8108024.
It referenced the the photic sneeze reflex as a previously unrecognized problem. So I figured the statement was bad and therefore took it back out. SDC 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the well justified and needed correction of wording to the article on frontotemporal lobar degeneration. I couldn't agree more that it's important to keep pathological entities and clinical syndromes distinct. Also, I think it's important to keep the relevant information about the clinical entities thought to be caused by those pathologic processes in the article somehow. This is why I added some of the information you removed back to the article. Hopefully, this or something like it will seem a fair compromise. Cheers, sallison 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your edits and appreciate the courteous note. A glance at the CV on your page makes it clear you know much more about this topic than I do! -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Lyford House, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 02:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad logo.gif missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)